Groundbreaking Investigation Reveals Monsanto Teamed Up With US Military; Targets Scientists,

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

They obviously had no trouble getting the "Monsanto Protection Act" passed, something that allows them to keep pumping out their frankenfoods even if they've been suspected as being poisonous and harmful.

Another lie that you have accepted without investigation. I know you don't care about being lied to by "your own" but please read the link this time.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


All Monsanto would have to do is print an extra line on a shipping order that says:

[ ] GMO?

[ ] Non-GMO?

And then someone checks it before shipping it off to a producer/grocer. Doesn't seem all that hard to me, and hardly worth the trouble of lobbying courts to shoot down bills.

There has to be an ulterior motive wouldn't you say? Or are they really worried about that little bit of extra ink they're using? I'm sure they pay more for lobbying than that one line of ink would cost, so it seems kind of counter-productive.

Originally posted by Phage
Every link in the supply chain which occurs has to be tracked. Now, who's responsibility is it to do the tracking? The farmers? The company who sold the seed (and Monsanto is not the only seller of GMO seed)?

And, why should the people be burdened with the nightmare that Monsanto and its bed
fellows have conceived? Let them pay for it, have you looked at the national debt lately?

Monsanto and its other ilk, bio-tech minions want the profit, but they dont want the responsibility?
That is NOT the consumers problem, nor should it be our cost to bear!

If Monsanto can sell its crap without a label, I see that the problem lies squarely
in its lap, along with its PIMP, the USDA. Let them find the way to pay from the profits.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

All Monsanto would have to do is print an extra line on a shipping order that says:

[ ] GMO?

[ ] Non-GMO?

And then someone checks it before shipping it off to a producer/grocer. Doesn't seem all that hard to me, and hardly worth the trouble of lobbying courts to shoot down bills.

Now that is just plain and inexcusable ignorance. Monsanto does not sell food crops.
For a while I thought you were actually asking question that you wanted some answers to. I was wrong.

reply to post by Phage


It says that "upon the request of farmers or producers". Do you honestly think farmers or producers would request their cash flow to stop?

Unless a farmer or producer requests a halt to production (which they most likely would not for fear of losses), the court is powerless to stop its production.

So again, Monsanto has created a bill that prevents the court from halting production of possibly poisonous seed unless a farmer or producer requests their income to be halted. Tell me, do you really not see how Monsanto has created a loop hole for themselves here?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It says that "upon the request of farmers or producers". Do you honestly think farmers or producers would request their cash flow to stop?

Read it again. It is the farmers or producers who request a permit to continue growing if a plant becomes regulated.

upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation

So again, Monsanto has created a bill that prevents the court from halting production of possibly poisonous seed unless a farmer or producer requests their income to be halted.

False. You didn't read. The bill only concerns plant pests. There is nothing in the bill concerning the courts authority in cases of food safety.

reply to post by Phage


I never said they sold food crops. Where'd you get that idea?

They sell their GMO seeds to both producers (farmers) and grocers don't they? So what's so hard about created an extra line or two containing a check list about their seeds being GMO or not?

If the farmers and grocers fail to mark their product as GMO based on the check list handed to them by Monsanto, it is no fault of Monsanto's because they followed procedure and the farmer/grocer did not.

What's so difficult about my suggestion?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I never said they sold food crops. Where'd you get that idea?

From the part where you said Monsanto should check GMO before the crop goes to the producer/grocer. Monsanto has no role in that part of it.

They sell their GMO seeds to both producers (farmers) and grocers don't they? So what's so hard about created an extra line or two containing a check list about their seeds being GMO or not?

You really think the farmers don't know they are buying GMO seeds? Really? Hopeless.

reply to post by Phage


So Monsanto has created a loop hole for the farmers they do business with to continue selling possibly poisonous foods.

What's the difference exactly? Why would Monsanto use the time and resources to create a bill that has no effect, good or bad, on them? The answer is they wouldn't.

They have created a bill that allows the farmers they sell to to continue selling their seeded crops, poisonous or not, "upon request". They have created a loop hole that benefits them.

reply to post by Phage


So what's the hang up with labeling GMO foods again? If the farmers and growers would take the fall for not labeling them, what does Monsanto have to worry about? Why are they so against farmers who buy their seed labeling it as GMO?

You are using a circular argument here. Why is Monsanto fighting the labeling if farmers know they are buying GMO, and how does their (the farmers) knowledge of what they're buying make any difference in the debate of labeling them for what they are?

You're deflecting the question and point.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What's the difference exactly? Why would Monsanto use the time and resources to create a bill that has no effect, good or bad, on them? The answer is they wouldn't.

Wow. Did you think of that all by yourself?

They have created a bill that allows the farmers they sell to to continue selling their seeded crops, poisonous or not, "upon request".

Not exactly. For the ....third?...time. The bill has no authority regarding food safety. It concerns plant pests. Now, if you go back...and read the post...you will find out what a plant pest is. It has nothing to do with food safety.

Furthermore, unless a new law is enacted, the bill expires at the end of September and the Secretary of Agriculture will no longer be mandated to provide a permit for a plant (which is already in production) which may become regulated.

You have been lied to about the bill and you don't care. It has nothing to do with food safety. Here is that lie...one more time:

They obviously had no trouble getting the "Monsanto Protection Act" passed, something that allows them to keep pumping out their frankenfoods even if they've been suspected as being poisonous and harmful.

reply to post by Phage


Okay, let me rephrase that since you are all about deflection.

Monsanto has created a loop hole that allows farmers to continue the use of certain plant pests "upon request", even if those plant pests damage a crop to the detriment of those consuming it.

So again, what is the difference?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Okay, let me rephrase that since you are all about deflection.

Deflection? I have answered every question you have asked me. You on the other hand, when asked to show that there is a law that "prohibits" pesticide labeling, do what? Err. well. um. That's not what they really meant.
Never mind that's exactly what they said.

Monsanto has created a loop hole that allows farmers to continue the use of certain plant pests "upon request", even if those plant pests damage a crop to the detriment of those consuming it.

That's right, first ask me to prove a negative. Now start moving the goalposts. I bet I can guess what comes next.

If you can't (or won't) see the difference between this:

something that allows them to keep pumping out their frankenfoods even if they've been suspected as being poisonous and harmful.

and a temporary permit to continue to raise a plant that was already being raised there really is nothing more to say.

You were lied to. The bill has nothing to do with food safety. And you still don't understand what it actually says because your confirmation bias does not allow you to understand it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

You advocate imtimidation, cyberhacking "attacking" becasue you dont agree with someones
anti GMO stance?

Evaluations of IP log files show that not only Monsanto visits the pages regularly, but also various organizations of the U.S. government, including the military. These include the Navy Network Information Center, the Federal Aviation Administration and the United States Army Intelligence Center, an institution of the US Army, which trains soldiers with information gathering.

topinfopost.com...
Oh dear. They are visiting her website. You call that a cyberattack? I wonder if they ever "attack" ATS. From what we've been learning recently, there aren't many sites that the government doesn't "attack".

What intimidation?

edit on 8/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

As a matter of fact they are attacking ATS....as i was opening up the ATS link a warning flashed on my screen telling me to update my flash with a link, so naturally i dismissed it as nothing more than the NSA attempting to penetrate me , so i dropped the ATS page then restarted it, then everything was fine.

Seems as though The NSA has attached themselves to ATS without ATS's knowledge

reply to post by Phage


I never said any law prohibited pesticide labeling. Please point out where I said that, because I don't recall. All I said was that Monsanto has fought against foods being labeled as GMO.

You have yet to give a satisfactory answer as to why they would be fighting a bill such as that. Your only answer has been that keeping up with the shipments would be "too difficult", which is an extremely easy and cheap fix on their part, in the form of an easy check list which ks transfered through each shipment/stopping point. That's hardly an excuse if you ask me.

I will concede as of now that there is nothing in the law that allows Monsanto immunity as far as poisonous crops go. But they have still created a loop hole in which they can continue to use plant pests which have been regulated and/or prohibited upon requests, even if those pests damage the crops at the detriment of the consumer.

I don't know about you, but I do not want to be eating a crop which has become diseased on account of plant pests which should have stayed prohibited or regulated. Maybe that's just me though.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm sorry. I got confused when you replied here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have yet to give a satisfactory answer as to why they would be fighting a bill such as that. Your only answer has been that keeping up with the shipments would be "too difficult", which is an extremely easy and cheap fix on their part, in the form of an easy check list which ks transfered through each shipment/stopping point. That's hardly an excuse if you ask me.

I did not say it would be "too difficult". I said it would be problematic. I also said that I am in favor of labeling.

Easy and cheap on who's part? You seem to have an overly simplistic view of how food production works. It doesn't just go from the farm to the tortilla factory. Grain from a variety of sources gets transported to storage facilities where it is consolidated. Hundreds, thousands of truck loads to keep track of. That grain gets processed (ground). In order to ensure certification completely segregated transport, storage and processing facilities would be required. Not one silo (multiplied by thousands) but two. Not one mill, but two. The flour from those facilities would have to have a documented chain of custody to ensure purity. A chain of custody from farm, to storage, to milling, to factory. Yes, it can be done. No it isn't easy or cheap. Who bears the cost of it? Well, in the long run, the consumer of course.

But they have still created a loop hole in which they can continue to use plant pests which have been regulated and/or prohibited upon requests, even if those pests damage the crops at the detriment of the consumer.

Did you read the conditions placed upon those permits?

I don't know about you, but I do not want to be eating a crop which has become diseased on account of plant pests which should have stayed prohibited or regulated. Maybe that's just me though.

I'm not sure how you think a GMO can cause a disease in another crop but no, it's not just you. But I don't see GMOs as posing a danger. I don't see anything inherently dangerous about them and I haven't seen any evidence that they do pose any danger. I am keeping my eyes open though.

BTW, seen any GMOs (or non-GMOs) become newly regulated since the law was signed? The clock is ticking rapidly on the law so it's likely to turn out to be moot anyway.

I admit my ignorance on this subject matter.
It does intrigue me though as I've been highly suspicious of GM foods and want to know what is really happening here. I despise corporatism and my biggest beef with the GMOs are the claims that farmers are being forced into corners and the big scary of food being monopolized by corps - especially as time goes on. I WANT to know real information about this and when I read posts such as these, I need them to be honest because I don't want to make false claims to others.

At this point, I just want to say thank you, Phage, for maintaining a solid objective and scientific viewpoint on subjects like these and not giving up on the threads. I appreciate your seemingly tireless ability to address these subjects with truth. While I still lack a majority of understanding about GMOs and all the details, your replies show the knowledge. While I have this WANT to oppose just about any greedy corporational wrong-doing, your comments are keeping me grounded and making me see your points about reverse propaganda/not completely forthcoming on information and how everyone seems to just miss that there's a lot more companies doing the same or worse deeds than just Monsanto.

So basically, yes, I have some crazy inner want to despise Monsanto et al, but not at the expense of losing the truth. Posts like these are teeming with intrigue and are easy sells for some of us. Please, KNOW what you're talking about when you try to make them - don't just post to persuade others into following a siren song that may or may not lead to truth.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by jlafleur02

Two days before the study across 18 countries was set to be published, a virus disabled the computer of the main organiser, Adrian Bepp.

I guess the NSA data collection came in handy. They know what is going on before it happens.n They are all linked. A lot of people out there say they don't care about the NSA cause they are not terrorist. Why do they think they are targeting only terrorist.

I am trying to follow your train of thought here, are you saying that the researchers preparing the
study using non Monsanto funded scientists are terrorists?

If so, since when did anti GMO research become a crime?
Independent science research makes one a terrorist?

I don't think any of them are terrorist. What I mean is the NSA data collection is supposed to be used for the capture and detection of terrorist. That what the NSA says. If Monsanto is using the government to help its monitoring of these scientist then they are basically using the data for purposes other than terrorist. Basically Collecting data for whatever they want or a corporation wants. So, you or me, are being monitored even though we are not terrorist. It seems for monsanto to know what the scientist where doing, they must have had help with data collection.

Originally posted by gottaknow
I admit my ignorance on this subject matter. .....

I've been highly suspicious of GM foods and want to know what is really happening here....

You do?
Yet your logic is circular, and conflicted.

ph.answers.yahoo.com...

Monsanto is a chemical company - thats bought up seed companys.
Ponder on that....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I'm sorry. I got confused when you replied here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is what happens when one uses circular logic coupled with
carefully parsed bits of seemingly intelligent rhetoric, mixed with
misleading statements and logical fallacies.